Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Online dhazer  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:52:32 AM(UTC)
dhazer

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2013Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2009PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2013

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 45
Applause Received: 193

Biggest need on this team is a mean attitude. Simple enough no more of this Mike McCarthy pussy playing. Bring in someone that is physical and knows how to win. With that said we need that hard hitting safety. Spend the money Ted and bring in Ed Reed for the few years left and maybe he will rub off on some of the younger players.
UserPostedImage

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be :)
Offline Pack93z  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:00:58 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post


Remember the game last year when Aaron Rodgers got dinged? Harrell came in. Ball was on the 0.5 yard line. Simple play. Just hand it off to the RB, right? Nope. Fumbled snap. It's not fair to use that as sole proof we have a weakness at QB, but what if we lost that game? Aaron Rodgers is out for one play and it goes bad. I have no faith in either backup.


So only Harrell deserves the blame for getting tripped up? I seen him do some pretty good things in Preseason.. and hasn't really been given time to do the same in the regular season. The same complaints were made of Flynn until he lit up the Lions. If Harrell completely flopped in the preseason.. I might be more apt to buy into the fret.. but when he played with more of the core guys he played alright.

Quote:

Source..

Graham Harrell had a dazzling performance that included three touchdown drives.

Graham Harrell
It was as if Aaron Rodgers had suited up in Graham Harrell's jersey. Harrell completed 13-of-15 passes for 223 yards with two touchdowns. He successfully operated a two-minute scoring drill in the first half. Gurley should've caught one of Harrell's two incompletions.

With Harrell in the game, the Packers scored 21 points in approximately one quarter of play. Any doubts about whether he'd win the No. 2 quarterback job were laid to rest after that performance.


If we want to only look at first impressions we might not have Rodgers on the field today...
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:06:26 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

I guess I'm not understanding greatest need on our team being Rodgers' backup. Anybody see how our D got thrashed by SF twice, SEA, NYG, MIN?

Sadly, we are not just one player away, but many. Raji & Pickett need legit backups to work a real rotation. We need a mauler DT, and a mauler DE with a non stop motor. We've got to get a S and at least one more LB. a thumper of a punishing RB would fit the bill too. Then there is the OL.

DL has to be a top priority. We can't win if we can't stop the other team.

DE, NT, DT in that order. Maybe a couple of DEs and move Pick exclusively to NT rotation.
Offline Pack93z  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:12:25 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

Okay.. now to the biggest need? I think the Packers need another impact player in the box on defense.. someone else to make the defense scheme for. Raji at times can be.. but not consistently.

I don't care if he plays the line, the inside or outside backer.. but another high motor disruptive presence that forces the offense to commit extra attention to. That is an absolute must.. hopefully we have one on the roster already in Perry, Worthy or another.. but we have to find one before opening day.

After that.. I think we could use a dominate inside force at Center that will anchor the line.. a physical beast if you will. If we want to dominate on offense we have to be able to balance up the play calling some... a head knocking center would do that.. those three inside would be able to mash people..

I am higher on Marshall than most at the edge.. but he definitely in not blue chip material.. so a ass kicker out there would be an upgrade.. heck an ass kicker on the right side would be as well. Although I think Bulaga was nicked up from the start last season and was never really healthy.

I like the construction of our secondary assuming Shields is back.. I like Harris and Green in the back field, but we could use a another horse not named Starks. Sorry.. I have soured on him.. upright runner that can't stay healthy.

I also hope the Packers bring in a kicker to push Crosby this camp.. or at least pick up some of the work in camp to keep Crosby focused. Out of all the holes last season.. that might be the most overlooked was our issues in the kicking game.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#20 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:09:10 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Pack93z, that impact player in the front 7 is really essential, maybe two or three of them. We were that bad at stopping the run - allowing historical yardage, all-time. Coming off a season being the worst ranked D, I thought that was very disappointing. Granted, the Perry injury really, really hurt us. Worthy, I expected more from him as a rookie DT, but he played fairly well until his injury. Now, we may have him lost for all of 2013. I like Daniels and his play, a lot, but I do think he is limited in effectiveness simply by size. Walden was a major disappointment to me, as he seems like he should be so much more effective. He flashes, but all too inconsistently. CJ Wilson, kind of unremarkable. I appreciated Jones' tenure on the inside last season, and thought he played better than he ever had. Hawk too. But both of those guys have their limitations. We need players who are top performers, anywhere in the front 7, but especially on the line. Adding two top performers to our front 7 would be a huge plus.

All this talk about Harrell and Coleman, wow, talk about small samplings... How can we really say how good or bad they would be if given the reigns after a potential loss of Rodgers? Based on what? There, the point seems moot. Totally.

Offensively, I'm with you on Newhouse. He may show some big improvement in year 3. Then again, he may not, and so drafting a pure LT would not be a bad move. That, or adding a proven vet there. C, yeah, we need one, but not to start, not right away. I think EDS could be our starting C for years. That is one tough dude, and the rest of the players on that line know him well. I do think Andrew Datko has the potential to surprise us this season at OT. Barclay seems pretty decent. OL may not be as great a need. Now, OL coach? Playcalling? Both need significant improvements. We've shown ourselves to be way, WAY too predictable.

I do think we need a total wrecking crew of a RB - someone who is going to punish an opposing D. I mean, really hurt em. I can only hope to God that McCarthy has seen the light and will emphasize the run more. Given that, I'd like for us to ditch Finley, and get a more well rounded TE in there to help block. That's part of the beauty of the position, as a D has to account for a TE busting into the flat or taking off downfield after a chip. I think Finley being in there is such a liability, as his blocking really does stink. He's more of a glorified WR, one who is trending downward with regards to production, while his pay climbs into the top paid in the NFL at TE. I'd cut our losses with him and draft another. We won a SB with Quarless, and he should be back this season ready to go. Take Finley's cash and throw it at Goldson for a top veteran S addition.

Here is an interesting article on Finley's receiving production over his career: http://jerseyal.com/GBP/...ll-of-jermichael-finley/

With blocking being a huge issue regarding Finley's play, here is another article that really points to him being more of a WR, and I cannot argue that: https://www.profootballf...ht-end-or-wide-receiver/

And, this one pretty much spells the end for him in GB: http://www.jsonline.com/...y-v081e07-183664521.html

So, I'd have to say I am really hopeful for the future of this team, especially knowing we will have some money to put into some areas of our team that really need help. This is going to be an interesting month.
Offline Glorydays  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:50:16 AM(UTC)
Glorydays

Rank: Practice Squad

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: Ohio

Applause Given: 4
Applause Received: 4

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
How can you think he couldn't win a High School game when he had double digit win total in College?

I believe losing Jermichael Finley and Greg Jennings would hurt, but not as much as some may think. I think Andrew Quarless and D.J. Williams can fill in admirably for Finley and also Randall Cobb, James Jones and Jordy Nelson can eat up the catches Jennings will not get. I also think that Jarrett Boykin fella is gonna contribute a couple dozen receptions too.


My concern is if we lose a starter or two at WR. That makes a huge dropoff in talent. As far as Harrell goes, he hast displayed ANYTHING that would inspire confidence if Aaron Rodgers went down. His stumble bum play on the one yard line was agonizing to watch. Could that happen to anyone? Sure. Its still uninspiring. He's no daisy!
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:55:38 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 70
Applause Received: 115

Ok. So as long as we get a monster at DE or LB or S, we will make the playoffs with Harrell at QB for 16 games?

Every team needs new players and depth. The Super Bowl champs in Baltimore currently have major issues at LT, MLB (2), WR and Safety. Everyone has needs. Packers are no different in that regard.

The point is that I personally have no faith in this team making the playoffs if Aaron Rodgers goes down for any serious time. Any other player can go down and I think we can survive. It was proven this year. But Harrell has no experience and, so, we have no evidence to suggest that we have an adequate backup.

We are not like everyone else. Things worked out ok for 49ers with their 'backup'. Seattle has experience. Washington looks like it did well last year with both rookie QB's. Atlanta has experience. Many teams have a veteran (castoff) at backup QB. We have novices.

Favre and Rodgers have spoiled us. I don't think we place enough value on a backup QB in today's NFL, because, frankly, the backup in Green Bay has not been relied on in 20 years. Our time is coming.
blank
Offline Pack93z  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:07:35 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post


We are not like everyone else. Things worked out ok for 49ers with their 'backup'. Seattle has experience. Washington looks like it did well last year with both rookie QB's. Atlanta has experience. Many teams have a veteran (castoff) at backup QB. We have novices.


What about the Champs.. the Ravens? Tyrod Taylor would give you confidence?

I agree.. Rodgers goes down, we have lost a ton. Probably will not be a playoff contender. But just as Flynn was an unknown and shined.. the same could happen with Harrell as well. Harrell has shown positives (along with negatives) in preseason.. but to discard him because of a single snap? He has been in the system for a couple of years and the staff has confidence in him.

Sorry.. this is a product of the NFL of today.. when you commit the type of money these franchise QB's are getting.. committing dollars to retain proven backups isn't always available.

The examples you are citing are teams with either young starters and highly drafted backups because both are just proving themselves and are relatively cheap or they are midline starting QB's with the future in the wings.

Now.. compare players in Rodgers pay bracket. Go look up the Brady, Brees, Manning(s), Rivers, Cutler camps. What do they all have.. a clear frontline starter collecting large money with inexperience behind them for the most part.

We are no different. Are we spoiled.. absolutely.

Would I love to have an upgrade.. absolutely.. but I have one end game in mind. The Lombardi.. I see more pushing needs in the starters of this roster than a backup QB. I have more important rotational players in mind than a backup QB.

Plus I think QB's as a whole.. the position is overrated. They are not the end all be all of a complete football team.

Edited by user Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:27:34 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#24 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:32:46 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Ok. So as long as we get a monster at DE or LB or S, we will make the playoffs with Harrell at QB for 16 games?


Maybe. You don't know. No one does. Let's just hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to see Rodgers go down.

All I know, is we need to bolster our D. Is there really any question about this? Did you watch any of those games? Add to that more emphasis with running the ball, and maybe some players there to upgrade our rushing ability. Who is to say Harrell or Coleman wouldn't be able to make the playoffs? Who is to say that they wouldn't improve with more #1 reps?

These defensive upgrades are necessary for Green Bay to become a better team. If we fail to make them, again, we may not make the playoffs, WITH Rodgers. But, I doubt highly that we would go anywhere without being able to stop the run, and stop TEs roaming free across the middle of our D.

You are arbitrarily picking just one player, Rodgers, in a hypothetical scenario where he becomes injured, and saying the backup for his position will not be able to help us win. Try picking Raji, or Pickett... what do you think would happen differently? Me, I think those defensive losses would take us out of any kind of playoff running faster than the loss of Rodgers. At least with Harrell and Coleman, we'd still have a chance with a run heavy offense installed.

We have no depth on our front 7, and many holes at front 7 starter positions. Pick should be a backup by now, at his age. There is a giant sucking sound coming from the front 7 of our D... Who is it on our defense that other teams are always having to gameplan around, besides Matthews? Oh, that's right! NO ONE.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#25 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:13:13 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 70
Applause Received: 115

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Maybe. You don't know. No one does. Let's just hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to see Rodgers go down.

All I know, is we need to bolster our D. Is there really any question about this? Did you watch any of those games? Add to that more emphasis with running the ball, and maybe some players there to upgrade our rushing ability. Who is to say Harrell or Coleman wouldn't be able to make the playoffs? Who is to say that they wouldn't improve with more #1 reps?

These defensive upgrades are necessary for Green Bay to become a better team. If we fail to make them, again, we may not make the playoffs, WITH Rodgers. But, I doubt highly that we would go anywhere without being able to stop the run, and stop TEs roaming free across the middle of our D.

You are arbitrarily picking just one player, Rodgers, in a hypothetical scenario where he becomes injured, and saying the backup for his position will not be able to help us win. Try picking Raji, or Pickett... what do you think would happen differently? Me, I think those defensive losses would take us out of any kind of playoff running faster than the loss of Rodgers. At least with Harrell and Coleman, we'd still have a chance with a run heavy offense installed.

We have no depth on our front 7, and many holes at front 7 starter positions. Pick should be a backup by now, at his age. There is a giant sucking sound coming from the front 7 of our D... Who is it on our defense that other teams are always having to gameplan around, besides Matthews? Oh, that's right! NO ONE.


So we can't live without Raji? Hope he doesn't get hurt and miss any games. Oh wait. He did. So did Woodson and Matthews. All of our supposed studs on defense missed games in 2012. Did we give up yards? Yes. Win games anyway? Yes.

Of course the D needs to get better. So does the O. So do Special Teams. I doubt Mike McCarthy is satisfied with any of them.

But Aaron Rodgers covers up for a lack of running game, injured receivers, porous line. Think Harrell can?
blank
Offline Pack93z  
#26 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:23:33 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post


But Aaron Rodgers covers up for a lack of running game, injured receivers, porous line. Think Harrell can?


So how about fixing the real issue of a sluggish running game, a porous line and better depth at receiver in place of committing more dollars (in which a FA QB will cost) or consuming a higher pick on a QB whereas that pick can be used on more immediate return. Or better yet.. build an ass kicking take no prisoners type of defense..
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#27 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:27:20 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

You have to admit, your hypothetical situation is shifting... you were talking 16 games with Harrell. I'm saying, over the course of 16 games, we would lose more with the loss of those other players I mentioned. Maybe not. Who knows? I know damn well what Rodgers does for our team.

We gave up at least 100 yds in 7 of our last 9 games of the 2012 season, including the playoffs. We averaged 132 opponent rushing yds per game by our D in 2012. We let a rookie torch us for 444 yds in his first playoff game.... we gave up 323 yds rushing in that one game. 579 total yds of offense given up.

NFL record for most rushing yds given up to a QB. That's horrendous, and unacceptable.

Woodson's comments after that game: "They're a deep team, they're a big team, they're a fast team, they're well-coached," he said. "I look at us and maybe we've got to be bigger and faster."

We gave up 409 yds rushing to AP in just two games against MIN... Ridiculous. We spent time working on tackling drills. AP had 189 yds AFTER CONTACT in just one game.

Our last 3 playoff losses we gave up 51, 37 and 45 points. This SCREAMS we need help on D.

Conversely, we never rushed for more than 100 yds away from home last year. This SCREAMS we better learn how to run the f*cking football.

Two major points of emphasis for 2013 I would say...

Edited by user Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:00:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline nerdmann  
#28 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:01:25 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,387
Applause Received: 600

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
So we can't live without Raji? Hope he doesn't get hurt and miss any games. Oh wait. He did. So did Woodson and Matthews. All of our supposed studs on defense missed games in 2012. Did we give up yards? Yes. Win games anyway? Yes.

Of course the D needs to get better. So does the O. So do Special Teams. I doubt Mike McCarthy is satisfied with any of them.

But Aaron Rodgers covers up for a lack of running game, injured receivers, porous line. Think Harrell can?


One could argue that Aaron is more likely to abandon the run game and audible into too many deep passes down the field. Harrell would not be prone to stat whore, but would be forced to work within the system and maintain solid fundamentals.

With Harrell as your QB are you gonna abandon the running game? I don't think so. You're going to have balance. And he's not gonna be passing up open guys waiting 8+ seconds for something to develop deep.

Remember in '99 when Trent Green went down in the preseason? Rams fans thought their season was over. Up steps the next guy, you might have heard of him. Dude named Kurt Warner.

Is Harrell as good is Kurt Warner? Unlikely. But the Packers offense is stacked with talent, especially if we get Sherrod/Datko and Bulaga back. Dude's gonna have plenty of targets coming open.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#29 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:23:01 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 70
Applause Received: 115

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
With Harrell as your QB are you gonna abandon the running game? .


Please smile when you read this because I am when typing. "Didn't know we had a running game to abandon..." Big Grin

blank
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 3/6/2013(UTC)
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#30 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:37:55 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 70
Applause Received: 115

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
You have to admit, your hypothetical situation is shifting... you were talking 16 games with Harrell. I'm saying, over the course of 16 games, we would lose more with the loss of those other players I mentioned. Maybe not. Who knows? I know damn well what Rodgers does for our team.

We gave up at least 100 yds in 7 of our last 9 games of the 2012 season, including the playoffs. We averaged 132 opponent rushing yds per game by our D in 2012. We let a rookie torch us for 444 yds in his first playoff game.... we gave up 323 yds rushing in that one game. 579 total yds of offense given up.

NFL record for most rushing yds given up to a QB. That's horrendous, and unacceptable.

Woodson's comments after that game: "They're a deep team, they're a big team, they're a fast team, they're well-coached," he said. "I look at us and maybe we've got to be bigger and faster."

We gave up 409 yds rushing to AP in just two games against MIN... Ridiculous. We spent time working on tackling drills. AP had 189 yds AFTER CONTACT in just one game.

Our last 3 playoff losses we gave up 51, 37 and 45 points. This SCREAMS we need help on D.

Conversely, we never rushed for more than 100 yds away from home last year. This SCREAMS we better learn how to run the f*cking football.

Two major points of emphasis for 2013 I would say...


12 months ago, we were all screaming about the need to shut down the pass. We had given up historic numbers in passing yardage. We were opposing QB's fantasy games. 15-1 record but lots of hand wringing after a depressing loss in the playoffs. So lots of defensive players drafted. Much improvement in Pass D. Still won a lot of games. Gave up some embarrassing rushing yardage though. Funny how even when things change, they stay the same.


blank
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / QCHuskerFan

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

1-Sep / Random Babble / nyrpack

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.